A Matter of Knowledge

The Fall Armyworm and its Management in Giathenge, Kenya

Interdisciplinary Land Use and Natural Resource Management (5440-B3-3F18)

06.04.2018

Iason Koutroumpelas - trl799

Manon Bourqui - bmq694

Laura Møller Schmidt - frv103

Simon Siantidis - bsr899

Supervisors: Christian Pilegaard Hansen & Lise Tjørring

Words: 9579

SLUSE 2018

SLUSE 2018

1

Abstract Among the various agricultural and socio-economic issues that Africa and Kenya face, another threat

puts agriculture and food security at risk since 2017. The Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera Frugiperda)

shows a highly destructive potential in warm climates like in Africa due to its fast distribution and its

consumption of many economical crops. The pest is native to the Americas, where many control

methods have been implemented in the agricultural practices of maize farmers to manage the pest.

In contrast, control of the FAW is still in the initial stage in Africa and Kenya. To control the pest

adequately, the Kenyan government and the international community released an action plan which

promotes the use of pesticides among other solutions. This paper aims on examining the active

management process against the FAW and the potential of non-chemical pesticides control methods in

the area of Giathenge in Othaya sub-county, Nyeri.

Results were collected through questionnaires and semi-structured interviews with farmers, pesticide

retailers and a government official during our field trip. Findings revealed that control methods were

limited to chemical pesticides and traditional methods (e.g. application of ash and soil). Lack of

knowledge and organisation among the people lead to these limitations, while poor application of

pesticides decreased the effectiveness of the latter. The community needs to cope with the FAW in the

coming years, work collectively and take initiative to inform themselves in order to manage the pest

efficiently. Moreover, the Kenyan government has to strengthen its position towards the FAW

infestation, support the local community with all necessary means (financial subsidies, trainings) and

create conditions for active collaboration. Despite the changes that should be done on a communal and

individual level, people’s positive attitude towards alternatives non-chemical control method leaves

potential for an integrated pest management in the future.

SLUSE 2018

2

Preface This report was written as a part of the examination for the course ILRUNM – SLUSE at the Faculty of

Science at the University of Copenhagen, in collaboration with Roskilde University and the University

of Nairobi. The report is directed towards master students with natural and social science background,

in addition to anyone with an interest in pest and disease management. This report was handed in the

06st of April 2018.

Table of Authors

Introduction All

Background All

Methodology All

Results All

Discussion All

Conclusion All

Recommendation All

Iason Koutroumpelas

_____________________________

Laura Møller Schmidt

___________________________

Simon Siantidis

___________________________

Manon Bourqui

___________________________

SLUSE 2018

3

Acknowledgments Firstly, we would like to express our gratitude to those who made this field trip possible; all the

instructors of the Wangari Maathai Institute, the University of Copenhagen and Roskilde University –

Prof. Christian Pilegaard Hansen, Dr. Lise Tjørring, Prof. Mutembei, Dr. Kiemo and Prof. Muthama

Nzioka that supervised our research.

We greatly appreciate the efforts of the chief and the community leaders in Othaya sub-county who

created a pleasant and safe environment for us to implement our project.

Special thanks go to the villagers of Giathenge and particularly to the farmers that gave their time and

answered our questions, supplying us with valuable information. We are also grateful to the

representative of the Kenyan government, the Agricultural Officer in Othaya sub-county for taking the

time to speak to us.

Finally, we are thankful to our Kenyan counterpart; Abel Kiprono, our host families; Mrs Martha Njake,

Mrs Nancy Gikiri, Mrs Laura Waigwa, that supplied us with more than we could ask; our guides,

Anthony & Agnes and our elder Myriam that provide us with knowledge and made the process of our

research much easier.

The group including supervisors, translator and host family

SLUSE 2018

4

List of Abbreviations AO: Agricultural officer

CABI: Centre of Agriculture and Biosciences International

FAO: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations

FAW: Fall Armyworm

FGD: Focus Group Discussion

MALF: Minister of Agriculture, Livestock and Fishery

PO: Participatory Observation

PRA: Participatory Rural Appraisal

SSI: Semi Structured Interview

USAID: United States Agency for International Development

Table of Figures Figure 1. Situation Map: Giathenge, Nyeri County, Kenya, Africa. ........................................ 9

Figure 2. Description of the life cycle of the FAW (Wawa, 2017). ....................................... 10

Figure 3. Distribution of questionnaires showed in blue (source: questionnaires). ................ 14

Figure 4 Distribution of FAW in the area of Giathenge. The orange bullets depict the infected

households while green depict the non-infected households (source: questionnaires). .......... 18

Figure 5. Farmers’ perceptions on major agricultural challenges faced in 2017, given in

percentage (source: questionnaires). ..................................................................................... 20

Figure 6. Pie chart indicating if people correlate FAW with yield losses last year (source:

questionnaires)..................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 7. Different uses of maize in Giathenge in percentage (source: questionnaires). ........ 22

Figure 8. Use of Chemicals on the study site showed in purple (source: questionnaires)....... 24

Figure 9. Indicates the actions taken to specifically control the FAW on maize (source:

questionnaires)..................................................................................................................... 25

Figure 10. Map made during PRA mapping exercise .................................................... XXXII

Figure 11. Posters presented during the feedback session ............................................. XXXVI

SLUSE 2018

5

Table of content

Abstract ................................................................................................................................. 1

Preface .................................................................................................................................. 2

Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................. 3

List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. 4

Table of Figures.................................................................................................................... 4

1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 7

2 Background ....................................................................................................................... 9

2.1 Description of field site .............................................................................................. 9

2.2 Life Cycle and Biology of Spodoptera frugiperda .................................................... 9

2.3 Related studies concerning the Fall Armyworm ..................................................... 11

2.4 National Program to manage the FAW ................................................................... 13

3 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 14

3.1 Observations and transect walk .............................................................................. 14

3.2 Questionnaires .......................................................................................................... 14

3.3 Semi-Structured Interviews ..................................................................................... 15

3.4 Participatory Rural Appraisal ................................................................................. 15

3.5 Focus Group Discussion Methodology .................................................................... 16

4 Results.............................................................................................................................. 18

4.1 Distribution of the FAW in Giathenge, Othaya sub-county ................................... 18

4.2 Agricultural challenges and their impacts in Giathenge ........................................ 19

4.3 Farmers, Agrovets, Agricultural Officers and their knowledge about the FAW .. 22

4.4 Information transfer in Giathenge .......................................................................... 23

4.5 Pest management and organisation challenges in Giathenge ................................. 23

4.6 Control methods against the FAW pest. ................................................................. 24

4.7 Acceptance of alternative pest control methods ...................................................... 26

SLUSE 2018

6

4.8 Interaction in the Community ................................................................................. 27

5 Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 28

5.1 Reflection on methods .............................................................................................. 28

5.1.1 Sampling and selecting respondents .................................................................... 28

5.1.2 Language and Translation.................................................................................... 28

5.1.3 Atmosphere and Locations of Data Collection ..................................................... 28

5.1.4 Sensible Topics During Research ........................................................................ 29

5.1.5 Data Reliability ................................................................................................... 29

5.2 Reflection on results ................................................................................................. 30

5.2.1 Governmental action plan: limitations and influences of pesticide companies ...... 30

5.2.2 Organisation and farmers’ knowledge ................................................................. 31

5.2.3 Yield losses due to the FAW in Kenya in comparison to other pests .................... 31

5.2.4 Inappropriate Pesticide Application in the Region of Giathenge .......................... 32

6 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 33

7 Recommendations and Future Perspectives .................................................................... 34

8 References ........................................................................................................................ 35

9 Appendices .......................................................................................................................... I

SLUSE 2018

7

1 Introduction

Pests1 on agricultural crops negatively affect production, livelihoods and food security (Geddes , 1990).

Sub-Saharan countries have a long history of being affected by pests (Geddes, 1990). Especially

countries with a tropical climate provide a suitable environment for insect pests due to the lack of a cold

winter. This enables and enhances the ability of insects to breed all year long (Hill, 1983). In general,

estimations of pre-harvest yield losses caused by pests’ aggregate to about 35% worldwide in the early

21st century and showed an increasing trend in the last decades (Bebber, Holmes, & Gurr, 2014; Oerke,

2006).

Crop production is hindered by yield losses through pests in Kenya as well. Grisley, (1997) estimated

yield losses for maize and beans at 57% and 42% in the Central Highlands of Kenya. There are six major

pests which affect agricultural crops in Kenya. These are Thaumatotibia leucotreta (false codling moth),

Liriomyza spp (Leafminer fly), Bemisia tabaci (Tobacco whitefly), Bactrocera invadens (Diptera:

Tephritidae), Ralstonia solanacearum (Bacterial wilt of potatoes) and Tuta absoluta (Tomato leaf

miner) (Wahome, 2016).

Still recovering from the aftermaths of a heavy drought in 2016, Kenya experienced devastating impacts

of the Spodoptera frugiperda, ‘Fall Armyworm’ (FAW) pest for the first time in 2017, leaving food

security threatened (Devi, 2018; FAO, 2017). The FAW is an invasive migratory pest and native to

tropical and subtropical regions of the Americas. First evidence of the FAW in Africa was found in 2016

in Central and Western African countries. It feeds on over 80 plant species and can cause tremendous

destruction and yield reduction of major crops, especially on maize, if not managed adequately (CABI,

2018). FAO estimates that about 7 million bags of maize have been lost due to the FAW during the

growing season of 2017 in Kenya (FAO, 2017).

FAW is significantly challenging in comparison to other insect pests. Its recent appearance in Kenya

leaves knowledge gaps that could be elaborated through the various studies that have been undertaken

in the Americas. In relation to that, many alternative control methods to pesticides have been tested. For

example, the push-pull method intercrops maize with repellent plants surrounded by attracting ones.

This technique has shown to be effective against the FAW in a study conducted in Kenya among other

countries (Midega, Pittchar, Pickett, Hailu, & Khan, 2018). The FAW has many natural enemies in

different life stages, both parasites and predators. This has been studied in the Americas and has

indicated to reduce the infestation of the FAW (Hoballah et al., 2004). Moreover, efforts of creating

resistant plants have been done but with contradicting results (Davis et al., 1995). Another well-known

1 In this context, ‘pest’ is defined as the occurrence of damage to a plant through an insect (Hill, 1983)

SLUSE 2018

8

method is the implementation of pheromone traps which have been tested in many places on the

American continent. However, their effectiveness is a debated topic.

As already mentioned the FAW is a new pest in Kenya. Therefore, only few studies have been done

about people’s knowledge concerning the pest and its management. The case study in Giathenge, Nyeri

County, Kenya gives us the opportunity to contribute to the available information about the FAW in the

region. From the literature we found that the current government programme to manage the FAW pest

in Kenya promotes the use of chemical pesticides. We hypothesise that the use of chemical pesticides

has several disadvantages. Issues might arise eventually since ingredients of pesticides have been found

to be toxic for humans and the environment. Exposure to toxic chemical pesticide ingredients is the most

common health threat for farmers in developing countries (Konradsen et al., 2003). Furthermore, poor

pesticide application can lead to economic drawbacks. Due to these reasons, sustainable agricultural

practices need to be promoted in Kenya, and non-chemical pesticide alternatives should be taken into

account (FAO, 2017). In relation to this, the research aims are:

1. To assess the extent of the Spodoptera frugiperda infestation in the study site of Giathenge in

Nyeri County

2. To examine farmer’, pesticide retailers’ and government officials’ present knowledge of the

FAW pest.

3. To outline the origin and transfer of knowledge of the pest and control methods.

4. To understand which actions are taken to manage the FAW pest and why.

These objectives will help us to answer the following research question:

“What is the potential for non-chemical pesticide control methods of the FAW infestation in

Giathenge?”

SLUSE 2018

9

2 Background

2.1 Description of field site

The research site is the village of

Giathenge, Nyeri County, Othaya

sub-county, located 120 km north of

Nairobi (figure 1). The area is a

tropical highland and most people in

the area are of the ethnic group

Gikuyu (Kenya-Information, 2018).

The area possesses a high agricultural

potential with fertile soils and a high

amount of rainfall. It rains

approximately 1,400 mm per year,

however, it varies in geographical

locations (Jaetzold & Schmidt,

1983). There are two rainy seasons,

long rains from April to May and

short rains from October to

November (Jaetzold & Schmidt

1983). Agriculture is the main

occupation in the region and the main

cash crops are coffee and tea.

However, most people are farming

for subsistence purposes

(kenyaInformation 2018). Houses are

scattered around the slopes of the area are with an average size of 0.64 ha including fields for agriculture

(Owuor et al. 2009).

2.2 Life Cycle and Biology of Spodoptera frugiperda

The Spodoptera frugiperda is a pest of the Lepidoptera order, native to the tropics and subtropics regions

of the western hemisphere. The pest can consume a large number of leaves, stems and seeds of more

than 80 plants, many of which are major economical crops such as maize, rice, sorghum (CABI, 2018).

During summer the life cycle is completed in about 30 days, whereas in winter it is completed in 80 to

90 days (Capinera, 1999). The number of generations that a moth will have in a year is influenced by

climatic conditions, however, a female can lay approximately 1500 to 2000 eggs during a year. The eggs

are spherical with a diameter of 0.75 mm and during oviposition they are of green colour. Eggs are laid

SituationMap Légende

Giathenge

Nairobi

NyeriCounty

400km

N

➤➤

N

ImageLandsat/Copernicus

ImageLandsat/Copernicus

ImageLandsat/Copernicus

DataSIO,NOAA,U.S.Navy,NGA,GEBCO

DataSIO,NOAA,U.S.Navy,NGA,GEBCO

DataSIO,NOAA,U.S.Navy,NGA,GEBCO

USDeptofStateGeographer

USDeptofStateGeographer

USDeptofStateGeographer

Figure 1. Situation Map: Giathenge, Nyeri County, Kenya, Africa.

SLUSE 2018

10

in masses on the underside of leaves and their number usually vary between 100 and 200 per mass (J.

Capinera, 1999). In temperatures of 20-30 degree Celsius the eggs will hatch within 2 to 3 days (CABI,

2018).

The larva has six different instars, which vary in appearance. The duration of the larval stage varies from

14 days in warmer environments to 30 days in colder environments. The mature larva has a reddish-

brown head, a brownish body and an inverted Y shape of yellow colour in its face. It can be also

recognised by the dark spots in the dorsal of its body (J. Capinera, 1999). In its mature stage it is around

3-4 cm long and has eight prolegs (CABI, 2018). Pupae are smaller than mature larvae and they usually

grow in the soil at depths of 2 cm to 8 cm. Pupation takes around eight to nine days in warm climates

and around 20 to 30 days in cold climates (J. Capinera, 1999).

The adult moth’s body length is 1.6 cm and its wingspan 3.8 cm. The hind wings in both sexes are silver-

white and have narrow dark borders (J. Capinera, 1999). Adults are more active during warm, humid

evenings and females lay their eggs in the first four to five days of their life. Their average life span is

10 days, which can range from 7 to 21 days in relation to climate (J. Capinera, 1999). The pest can be

significantly destructive in its larva stage and can reach high population numbers, while consuming

almost all vegetation in its path and disperse in large numbers. Finally, in America the pest can move

about 480 km per generation and use weather systems during migration (Sparks, 1986).

Figure 2. Description of the life cycle of the FAW (Wawa, 2017).

SLUSE 2018

11

2.3 Related studies concerning the Fall Armyworm

Several researches have been undertaken on maize and the FAW during the last 100 years, especially

on the American continent (FAO, 2017). A widely used technology involves intercropping maize with

repellent and attracting plants (push-pull method). In a recent study, which involved 250 farmers in the

dry areas of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania, researchers studied the effectiveness of a push-pull system

by comparing it with a monoculture maize plantation. The push-pull method involved intercropping

with the repellent plant Desmodium intortum, while using Brachiaria to create an attractive wall around

the main crop (Midega et al., 2018) The results showed a reduction of 82.7% in the average number of

larvae per plant, while the maize yields were 2.7 times higher compared to the monoculture maize

plantations (C. Midega et al., 2018).

The importance of biodiversity in agricultural systems is widely recognised while native insects and

pathogens can be significantly beneficial in agro-ecosystems (Gabriela Murúa, Molina-Ochoa, &

Fidalgo, 2009) In relation to that, S. frugiperda has many natural enemies in different life stages, both

parasites and predators, of which many have been studied in the Americas.

Research in Mexico (1999-2001) found parasitoids which can reduce the activity of FAW on maize and

other plants (Hoballah et al., 2004). Parasites can be beneficial and contribute to both farmers (increase

crop yield) and the plant by helping it to evolve defensive traits (M. Elena Hoballah et al., 2004).

Furthermore, the introduction of natural enemies does not require a lot of effort and cost and does not

harm the environment (Huis, 1981). On the other hand, only about a third of introduced biological

control agents manage to establish themselves in a new environment (Nechols, n/a). This is related to

genetic and environmental factors (Nechols, n/a). Moreover, it is possible that the imported species will

not interact well with the native ones (Nechols, n/a). These are issues that cannot resolved by

manipulating the environment, therefore the choice of the imported natural enemies should be done by

considering all the potential implications (Nechols, n/a).

In Nicaragua and Latin America, the FAW infestation created yield losses of 30% to 60% respectively

although a very small percentage (8%) of farmers used insecticide against it (Huis, 1981). The

government recommended the use of insecticide and new maize varieties to reduce the infestation (Huis,

1981). Introducing new varieties can affect the physiological and phenotypic conditions of the plant that

in turn can affect the development of the pest and its attacking patterns (Huis, 1981). Moreover,

unsprayed ecosystems are richer in fauna which is beneficial against the FAW and more than 19 natural

enemies were identified in Nicaragua (Huis, 1981). Despite that, natural enemies cannot always keep

the infestation below acceptable economic thresholds (Huis, 1981).

Concerning the FAW, 99% of the farmers in Ethiopia and Kenya claimed that they know the FAW

(Kumela et al., 2018). The source of information is mainly media and agricultural agents who are active

in the area after its detection (Kumela et al., 2018).

SLUSE 2018

12

The average rate of FAW infestation in Ethiopia was 32% and 47.3% in Kenya and created significant

reduction of maize yields in both countries (Kumela et al., 2018). Farmers in all areas supported that the

FAW infestation was more serious and devastating than other pests (e.g. stem borer) and they observed

it mainly during its larvae stage (Kumela et al., 2018). In Ethiopia 25% combined chemical pesticides

with handpicking, while in Kenya 39% used traditional control methods (e.g. soil application). Despite

the fact that the state recommended specific pesticides, many farmers chose to use others. This is related

to pure registration and distribution processes to get free pesticides. Furthermore, farmers are not used

to apply chemical pesticides on maize in these countries (Kumela et al., 2018).

In Ethiopia, 14% of respondents stated that pesticides affect human health, while in Kenya 12% of

people reported that maize deformation is the only negative effect in the use of pesticides (Kumela et

al., 2018). According to this research, governments distributed free pesticides but no adequate training

and spray equipment in these first actions against FAW (Kumela et al., 2018).

Many efforts have been made in the last decades to develop more resistant maize varieties to pests. For

instance, the ‘Mp’ inbred and the CIMMYT/MBR maize varieties seem to be more resistant to FAW

infestations (F. Davis et al., 1995). These varieties have stronger tissues, which are difficult for the

larvae to consume while their nutritional value is lower (F. Davis et al., 1995). The use of pesticides and

resistant maize varieties can be effective control methods, however, we cannot erase the possibility of

the pest to develop resistant traits against them (Hoballah et al., 2004).

Pheromone traps are a prevention and scouting intervention that can help farmers and authorities to

identify the presence of the FAW. Pheromone traps can detect and lure male flying pest species with the

use of pheromones that are naturally emitted by females (FAO, 2018a; Johnson, 2018).

Results from research in Mexico showed that moths are usually more active during rainy seasons (Rojas,

Virgen, & Malo, 2004). Moreover, a positive correlation between wind speed, temperature and trap

captures was observed (Huis, 1981). It was also noticed that moths are more active from the 10th to the

41st day of the maize growth, which is the most sensible stage of the plant (Huis, 1981). In conclusion,

climatic conditions can affect population numbers and specifically, heavy rains can kill the larvae and

reduce moth population (Huis, 1981).

Crop rotation is a potential pest control method for insects with low mobility between growing seasons

and with restricted host plant range (Stoner, 2012). However, not many pests follow this pattern, which

reduces the effectiveness of the intervention (Stoner, 2012). The time of planting is another factor that

small-scale farmers should consider to minimize the damage caused by pests (Zehnder, 2011). Planting

at periods that the pest is not present, can reduce the damage by avoiding high population numbers. By

planting early, crops can tolerate the damage better since they are stronger and more resistant when the

SLUSE 2018

13

pest will be present (Groves, 2012). In fact, recent reports from Kenya support that late-planted maize

had higher yield losses compared to early-planted maize (FAO, 2018a).

2.4 National Program to manage the FAW

As national food security is threatened by the infestation of the FAW, the Minister of Agriculture,

Livestock and Fishery (MALF) took action in 2017 to tackle it. A multi-institutional team with experts

from different institutions was introduced. Kenya participates in a project of ‘early warning’ and

‘monitoring’ funded by the USAID’s Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (USAID/OFDA). FAO

provided the Kenyan government with about 500 pheromone traps and organised monitoring trainings

for 400 farmers in 2017 (FAO, 2017).

The government program focuses on creating awareness and distributing knowledge on a national and

county level regarding the identification and management of the FAW (Kenyan State Department of

Agriculture, 2017). This is achieved through training of farmers, pesticide retailers and Agricultural

Officers. Technical recommendations are also instructed and include early planting patterns or the use

of pheromone mass traps (Kenyan State Department of Agriculture, 2017). The program recommends

and gives information about chemical pesticides such as Diazinon or Alpha Cypermethrin (Kenyan State

Department of Agriculture, 2017). However, a wide range of sustainable alternatives, are not mentioned

in the programme.

SLUSE 2018

14

3 Methodology

3.1 Observations and transect walk

We participated in daily activities of our host families, which helped us to have an inside view of the

situation. These observations gave us the opportunities to ask informal questions which helped us to

understand the social context of the field study. We worked at the research area during the beginning of

the maize planting season and therefore not many maize plants could be observed. The first day the

group (including guides and translators) decided to take a transect walk in order to have better

understanding of the area and familiarize with people.

3.2 Questionnaires

General questionnaires are used to

gather large amounts of data in a period

of a short time, with the purpose to

increase the understanding of a topic, to

generate hypotheses (qualitative) or to

test hypotheses, which have been

previously made and to correlate data

(quantitative) (FAO, 2018b).

For our case study a combinatorial

questionnaire was used (qualitative and

quantitative). The purpose was to

discover the distribution and the

farmer’s awareness and knowledge

concerning the FAW pest and if and

which kinds of actions farmers take to

manage it. Furthermore, conducting the

questionnaires in the beginning of our

research aimed at introducing us to the

community. Moreover, we looked for

possible correlations between age, farm

size, control actions, FAW knowledge

and maize yield losses. Questionnaires

were distributed to 40 houses in the

broader area of Giathenge by the following systematic sampling method. We followed this sampling

Questionnairesrepartition

Légende

FarmsparticipatedtoQuestionnaire

Home

1km

N

➤➤

N

Image©2018CNES/Airbus

Image©2018CNES/Airbus

Image©2018CNES/Airbus

Image©2018DigitalGlobe

Image©2018DigitalGlobe

Image©2018DigitalGlobe

Figure 3. Distribution of questionnaires showed in blue (source: questionnaires).

SLUSE 2018

15

method because we had limited knowledge about the population of Giathenge and we wanted to disperse

our sample unit throughout it (University of Arizona, 2018). We split in two genders mixed teams and

by setting one of our host households as starting point we followed different directions. Then we

identified long roads and started selecting samples every third house along our way. If we could not

approach anybody in a house, we noted it and went to the next one.

The general questionnaire was undertaken in the second day of our fieldwork while in our first day we

tested it in the house of one of our hosts. We did so, to get feedback especially on questions that are

being perceived as being sensible such as the position in the household, education and age. Finally, the

respondents for following semi-structured interviews were chosen from the questionnaires based on pre-

prepared characteristics (see Appendix).

3.3 Semi-Structured Interviews

‘Semi-structured interviews’ (SSIs) are a qualitative data conducting method including open-ended and

closed questions in which an interviewer wants to elicit information from a responder whom is given

room to give answers in a conversational manner (Kvale, 1996). The aim of doing these interviews was

to give the possibility to the respondents to get into some unexpected topics and give more details that

seem important to them.

We examined elaborated perspectives from pest-affected farmers (8 SSIs), an Agricultural Officer (one

SSI in Othaya) and pesticide retailers called Agrovets (5 SSIs in Giathenge and Othaya). Farmers whom

we have been in contact with during the process of the questionnaire method were chosen as respondents

for the SSIs based on the characteristics as being affected by the FAW, expressing interest about the

topic and agreeing on an interview. All these SSIs were based on an interview guideline (see Appendix).

3.4 Participatory Rural Appraisal

The ‘Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)’ method is a participatory field-based tool, which is

commonly carried out by a multidisciplinary team to collect information. It is characterised by a semi-

structured procedure with the goal to identify a new hypothesis about rural life. Central points of a PRA

are perceptions, attitudes and behaviours of the participants (McCracken, Rietbergen-McCracken,

Pretty, & Conway, 1988; Narayanasamy, 2009). Since these three aspects go hand in hand with the

acceptance of people concerning something new to them, we decided to use the PRA method as we were

interested in the level of acceptance of people concerning alternative control methods against the FAW

pest. Moreover, this will help us to develop a conclusion about our research question.

SLUSE 2018

16

The PRA was held in the office of the Chief’s assistant in Giathenge with 8 participants. Two translators

assisted throughout the exercises.

The criteria for inviting people for the PRA were the following:

1. Person participated in the questionnaire survey

2. Person was affected by the FAW pest

3. Person expressed interest in more extensive collaboration with our research

The PRA session was divided into two different exercises, namely a participatory mapping exercise and

a pairwise ranking exercise. Starting with the participatory mapping exercise, the purpose of this method

was to create a framework for working collaboration between the participants including discussions in

which every person felt comfortable. Barriers of illiteracy are removed, and space is given to the

participants to express their knowledge. Furthermore, it is crucial for research to rely on local native

knowledge since it has the ability to present a distinct and accurate perception and picture of the region

(Alcorn, 2000; Narayanasamy, 2009).

The participants were randomly divided into two groups and were asked to draw the FAW infestation

on a pre-prepared map of the area of Giathenge based on their own perceptions of the infested area and

their seriousness. This process was followed by a second round of drawing, in which the participants

were asked to indicate the chemical pesticides use of specific areas. Big circles were used to show heavy

pesticide use, while small circles indicated less chemical pesticide use.

After completing the first mapping exercise the second exercise, a brief description of seven alternative

control methods (see Appendix) followed by a pairwise ranking exercise was executed. Pair-wise

ranking methods are systematic tools that allow a prioritisation or a ranking list of problems or options

after completion. This happens through each-to-each comparison (Tim Russell, 1997). This was useful

to reach the goal of this exercise, which was to gain an understanding of the participant’s acceptance

concerning alternative control methods for the FAW pest besides chemical pesticide use. Furthermore,

a prioritisation provides information about which control method is most likely to be implemented by

the participants (Russel 1997).

Participants were asked to discuss about the presented alternative methods and to come up with possible

questions. Finally, the exercise was accomplished. Every person was requested to mark their own

preference by comparing each control method to each other on a pre-prepared poster.

3.5 Focus Group Discussion Methodology

Hennink defines ‘focus group discussions’ as a tool of qualitative research, which is characterised by

interactive discussions between a group of preselected people with a common background. The

SLUSE 2018

17

discussion is led by a moderator with the goal to gain an understanding of different points of view

concerning a specific topic (Hennink, 2013).

Respondents for the ‘Focus group discussion’ were selected by the following criteria:

1. Participated in the PRA. This ensured that respondents have the same background as being

familiar with maize farming and being affected by the FAW. As well, a comfortable working

atmosphere was already created through the PRA, which is essential for the success of a focus

group discussion.

As 8 people participated in the PRA session, we were able to form a focus group right after the

completion of the PRA with the same people in the same location. Leading questions (see Appendix)

were prepared beforehand to ensure a vital discussion. However, the discussion is based on the results

of the PRA and was therefore shaped by its outcomes.

SLUSE 2018

18

4 Results

4.1 Distribution of the FAW in Giathenge, Othaya sub-county

Figure 4 Distribution of FAW in the area of Giathenge. The orange bullets depict the infected households while green depict the non-infected households (source: questionnaires).

The first map (figure 4) shows the spatial distribution of the pest during the long rain season in 2017.

Farmers who participated in the SSIs experienced problems with the FAW for the first time in 2017.

The distribution follows a random pattern. However, one zone is more affected with only infested farms

(numbers 12 to 20). The damages by the pest vary to a significant degree among households (source:

Questionnaires).

The participatory mapping exercise showed the participant’s perception of the distribution of the FAW

infestation. Only a small area was marked as not infested. Areas were marked as less infested when they

were sprayed with pesticides. However, not every infested area was sprayed with pesticides. Notes were

FallArmyworm(FAW)distributionofthelastseason

Légende

FAWdammages

NoFAWonfield

1km

N

➤➤

N

Image©2018CNES/Airbus

Image©2018CNES/Airbus

Image©2018CNES/Airbus

Image©2018DigitalGlobe

Image©2018DigitalGlobe

Image©2018DigitalGlobe

SLUSE 2018

19

made if participants thought that a pesticide spray was applied too late to be effective. Both maps showed

that the area of Giathenge was heavily affected by the FAW in 2017 and that the participants are aware

or have their own perception of the geographical distribution, the pest’s infestation and the extent of

pesticide use.

4.2 Agricultural challenges and their impacts in Giathenge

The Agricultural Officer (AO) affirmed results

from the maps, showing that the infestation of the

FAW was extensive in the area of Giathenge.

According to the AO, 80% of all farms in the

region of Othaya (including the area of Giathenge)

were infested. However, there were no statistics

accessible to us, which quantified the infestation

of the FAW and the losses it caused on maize

yields. Nonetheless, other challenges intersperse

with the problem of the FAW pest in the region

which makes the quantification of maize yield

losses caused only by the FAW difficult (source:

SSIs & Questionnaires). Through the

questionnaires and the SSIs, several farmers

expressed an explicit concern and despair about

maize yield losses due to the drought.Picture taken during conducting a questionnaire, where the woman explained and showed us how the FAW had destroyed all her maize.

SLUSE 2018

20

Figure 5. Farmers’ perceptions on major agricultural challenges faced in 2017, given in percentage (source: questionnaires).

Figure 5 indicates that drought was regarded as the major challenge in 2017, while the second major

challenge was the FAW pest. Finally, a small percentage (11%) stated that they did not face any major

challenge last year. Farmers were free to set their own range of major challenges that they faced last

year. We calculated the total number of the answers given defined as challenges. That resulted in 31

respondents indicating that drought was a major challenge, while 18 claimed FAW as a major challenge.

Finally, only 6 people claimed that they did not face any major challenges in 2017.

31

18

6 10

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

drought FAW no don’tknow

Respondents

Challenges

Majoragriculturalchallengesin2017

SLUSE 2018

21

Figure 6. Pie chart indicating if people correlate FAW with yield losses last year (source: questionnaires).

By looking at figure 6, we can see that 50% believe that the FAW is responsible for the reduction of

their yield. However, still a large percentage of 45% stated that the FAW is not responsible for maize

yield losses. This result can be related to the lack of knowledge concerning the FAW that we observed

in many farmer and to the significant low rainfall that the broader area of Othaya experienced in 2017.

Farmers also set concerns about yield losses of maize in a context of food security (source: SSIs). Figure

7 shows that all farmers grow maize for their own consumption which shows the importance maize in

the region. In detail, 57% of the farmers grow maize exclusively for consumption while 43% use it

additionally for selling, fodder and gifts (source: questionnaires). Moreover, several farmers stated in

the SSIs that they had to buy maize or other food items to cope with the maize losses last season.

Therefore, maize yield losses affect households on an economical level too.

yes50%no

45%

don’tknow5%

Fawresponsibleformaizeyieldlossin2017

yes no don’tknow

SLUSE 2018

22

Figure 7. Different uses of maize in Giathenge in percentage (source: questionnaires).

4.3 Farmers, Agrovets, Agricultural Officers and their knowledge about the FAW

In general, we found from the questionnaires and the SSIs that the knowledge of farmers concerning the

pest was limited, especially about its life cycle and its spread. This is perceived as a problem by farmers

and they do not feel that their knowledge is sufficient enough to control the pest in the coming season

(source: SSIs).

For example, one farmer was afraid that the eggs of FAW were hiding in the maize seeds that she planted

(source: SSI number 3). Another person told us about a theory discussed among farmers that a kind of

locust pest attacking the trees, might fall down and transform into the FAW (Source: SSI number 5).

Nonetheless, interviewees of the SSIs were certain of their ability to identify the FAW as the cause of

the experienced problems on maize. They could distinguish it from other pests due to its extensive

damage on maize and its high caterpillar numbers.

The interviewed Agrovets knowledge concerning the control of FAW was limited to the information

printed on the pesticide bottles. They made statements concerning the effectiveness of a certain pesticide

based on reports from customers or own experiences. However, Agrovets stated that most pesticides

which work on other pests are not effective against the FAW (source: SSI with Agrovets 1 and 3).

It has to be noted that the AOs get their knowledge transferred directly by pesticide companies. The

officer states her opinion that “the FAW is not a more serious threat than previous caterpillar pests in

the area” (source: SSI AO). Related to that, she is confident that the issue will be managed soon. In

addition, she was not aware that the FAW pest is a long-term pest problem in South America.

Concerning the knowledge about pesticides, farmers were in general not sure about how they work. For

example, there was no consent if the pesticides kill the FAW in different life stages or just “push” it

57%28%

10%

5%

Farmersuseofmaize

eat eat,sell eat,offer eat,sell,feed

SLUSE 2018

23

away from the sprayed area (source: PO & SSI). However, none of the farmers had observed dead worms

after spraying.

By looking at the results of the questionnaire concerning socio-economic factors, we found that there is

no significant correlation between age, educational level, civil status, gender, household position and

knowledge concerning the FAW pest.

4.4 Information transfer in Giathenge

Through triangulation from participatory observations and the SSIs with different data providers, the

process of knowledge transfer concerning the FAW pest in the region of Giathenge could be outlined.

According to the Agriculture Officer (AO) “a lot has been done to inform people about the available

training seminars and the pest” (source: SSI AO). Information posters and brochures were given out and

put up in public places by government officials, such as in the Assistant Chief’s office in Giathenge and

in churches. The posters are issued by the pesticide company, Syngenta and include a brief manual on

how to identify the FAW with a series of photos. Furthermore, the poster recommends two pesticides2

to fight the FAW and suggests spraying early in the morning or late in the evening and night. It also

recommends that spraying should be commenced directly after detecting the FAW for the first time.

Information is mainly distributed through television and radio. Both kinds of media broadcast

information on how to manage the FAW in Kikuyu and English. In addition, a meeting has been

organised by the Department of Crop Production, Othaya sub-county, in order to train and inform

farmers about the FAW (source: SSI AO). However, contradicting information was found concerning

this topic. The AO stated that many farmers participated in these meetings, while farmers stated the

opposite (source: SSI AO & PO). Moreover, farmers were advised to report any FAW infestation at the

agricultural office. If reported, pesticide samples were given out, either on farms or directly in the office,

with a brief explanation on how to use it. This is an indication of responsibility moving from the

government to another actor. As one of the farmers described: “Nowadays, there are no field officers

visiting farms and advising farmers on agricultural issues anymore, such as pest management” (source:

SSI number 1).

4.5 Pest management and organisation challenges in Giathenge

Farmers lack organisation including a representative and the wish for such an organisation/union was

expressed (source: FGD). Improved information transfer from government officials to farmers is

expected by an active union of farmers. Furthermore, a union can gain attention from the government

faster, which is important to manage pests at an early stage and limit their negative impacts. However,

2 Product names: Voliam Targo & Match

SLUSE 2018

24

such a union has not been founded yet, since most farmers have limited time available and are already

involved in other associations (source: FGD).

Moreover, people expressed their conviction that limited AOs are available in the region nowadays.

Participants would like to see ’field officers’ visiting their farms, advising and collaborating with them

like they did in the past (source: SSIs & PO). This could reduce the gap of knowledge and save farmers

time, since they would not need to go to the agricultural office to report an infestation and receive related

information. Finally, participants stated that the government is responsible for providing solutions and

take rapid actions to tackle the FAW and other agricultural issues (source: FGD).

The AO explained that the national government is responsible for providing the financial resources for

distributing knowledge and implementing various control methods in the county, such as pheromone

traps. The AO states that: “The national government is not giving enough money to the county

government and therefore our resources are limited”.

4.6 Control methods against the FAW pest.

Figure 8. Use of Chemicals on the study site showed in purple (source: questionnaires)

UseofChemicalsontheField

Légende

ApplicationofChemicals

NoChemicalsused

1km

N

➤➤

N

Image©2018CNES/Airbus

Image©2018CNES/Airbus

Image©2018CNES/Airbus

Image©2018DigitalGlobe

Image©2018DigitalGlobe

Image©2018DigitalGlobe

SLUSE 2018

25

Data from the questionnaires and the SSIs with farmers showed that chemical pesticides are the most

prevalent and favoured method to control the FAW. However most of the questionnaire respondents did

not take any special action against the FAW (see figure 8). The only alternative methods used were

traditional control methods. These included:

1. Applying ash on maize plants

2. Applying soil on maize plants

3. Applying a water mixture of boiled tobacco with ‘piri-piri’ chillies on maize plants

However, statements concerning the effectiveness of these methods differ and are blurred since they

were usually used in addition to chemical pesticides.

Furthermore, interviewees did not specify how these methods fight the FAW and if their application

altered in response to the FAW.

Figure 9. Indicates the actions taken to specifically control the FAW on maize (source: questionnaires).

Figure 9 shows that the majority of farmers (26 out of 40) did not take any special actions against the

FAW. This includes all the respondents with and without any infestation. This result does not highlight

if people took actions to prevent the pest before being infested and if people had an infestation but did

not take any special action. Moreover, the figure shows that 10 of the respondents claimed that they

sprayed their maize plantations with chemical pesticides to control the FAW. Only 2 of them used

SLUSE 2018

26

traditional methods such as the application of ash and soil. This graph includes answers of all the

participants from the questionnaires, so farmers with and without worms on their maize.

In response to the FAW infestation, the government distributed free chemical samples to the community

after the problem was reported. Only a few farmers received these samples, while the distribution was

not in time to fight the FAW sufficiently (source: FGD & SSIs). It is uncertain if the distribution will

continue. As the AO says: “the FAW is not the only issue the Agriculture office has to deal with’’

(source: SSI AO). In addition, the officer believes that people living in the research area have the

financial capacities to buy their own pesticides. On the contrary, farmers expected more help from the

government and believed that earlier distribution of pesticides would be helpful (source: SSI).

4.7 Acceptance of alternative pest control methods

The pairwise ranking exercise allowed us to rank the seven presented alternative control methods (see

table 1). The rank list, which gives information about the prioritisation of the different control methods

is headed by ‘crop rotation’ with a score of 40, followed by ‘early planting’ with a score of 38 and

‘promote biodiversity/ push-pull’ with a score of 31. The alternative methods with the lowest score are

‘early warning’ with a score of 12 and ‘pheromone traps’ with a score of 4.

Table 1. Shows results gathered during PRA the pairwise ranking exercise (source: PRA)

Resistan

t varieties

Promote Biodiversity (push-pull)

Monitoring

Pheromone Traps

Early Warning (SMS)

Crop Rotatio

n

Early Plantin

g

Score of

method in

column

Rank of metho

d in column

Resistant Varieties

24 4

Promote Biodiversit

y (push-pull)

6 2

27 3

Monitoring

2 6

0 8

16 5

Pheromone Traps

0 8

0 8

1 7

3 7

Early Warning

(SMS)

3 5

0 8

2 6

6 2

12 6

Crop Rotation

8 0

7 1

7 1

8 0

8 0

44 1

Early Planting

5 3

8 0

8 0

7 1

7 1

3 5

38 2

SLUSE 2018

27

The participants of the FGD showed consensus of ranking ‘crop rotation’ as their favourite control

method and gave several reasons for it. Favouring crop rotation is based on their perception that the

FAW dies during the period in which maize is not planted (short rain season from October to December).

Furthermore, they stated that crop rotation is easy to implement, since it does not require skills that go

beyond people’s present farming knowledge and does not involve extraordinary expenditures. Lastly,

‘crop rotation’ is being preferred due to the fact that the maize harvest in the short rain season is not as

fruitful as in the long rain season.

People rely more on the yields of the long rain season (source: SSI & FGD). This means that

relinquishing from planting maize in the short rain season is conceivable from the point of subsistence

demands. In general, low costs and easy implementation are major factors for farmers that define the

potential of the implementation of a new alternative control method. Although the SSIs showed that

opinions on the subject vary. For example, one farmer felt ready to fight the FAW and ready to change

whatever crop is not profitable for her (source: SSI number 5). Whereas other farmers mentioned that

they couldn’t imagine themselves to not growing maize, since is an important part of their diet (source:

SSI number 1).

4.8 Interaction in the Community

One farmer expressed her opinion that pesticide samples were not equally distributed by the government,

as she said: “some people are favoured” (source: SSI number 2). The community does not exchange

ideas and knowledge regarding the FAW pest or how to manage it. In general, it’s not usual to help

neighbours if it is not a friend or a member of the family (source: PO & SSIs). Moreover, one farmer

mentioned that people would gossip about people, who have enough money to buy chemical pesticide

spray and who did not (source: SSI number 1). Money was considered to be a sensitive topic to talk

about (source: SSIs).

Nonetheless, several people expressed their concerns for the rest of the community regarding food

security due to the FAW pest. The most drastic statement expressed that: “there is no future for maize

farming the area if the problem will not be solved” (source: SSI number 6).

SLUSE 2018

28

5 Discussion

5.1 Reflection on methods

5.1.1 Sampling and selecting respondents

Several people were not found on their property to answer our questionnaires since we did not make

appointments beforehand. In this case, the neighbour house was approached. Moreover, before

conducting the questionnaire we needed to figure out which person in the household was responsible

for the maize farming. This was achieved by our elder or translators without any problems. Furthermore,

due to practical reasons, SSI respondents were limited to farmers who were affected by the FAW.

However, it might have been interesting to conduct interviews with non-affected farmers as well, to

examine the reason why this person was not affected. Moreover, the questions found in the

questionnaires, did not allow us to find any strong correlations between knowledge, actions against the

FAW and socio-economic factors. However, if questions had been phrased differently it might have

shown correlations between these variables.

5.1.2 Language and Translation

Translation and wording of the questionnaires did not show any barriers and respondents were able to

give their answers clearly. This was due to the sufficient and competent work of our translators.

Nonetheless, we experienced some language barriers during the SSI with the AO. The interview was

held in English. However, some answers were difficult to understand due to fast paced speaking, low

voice and a strong accent. An interview in Kikuyu did not seem appropriate for this occasion as the AO

started the conversation in English. We might have missed out on information as we felt it was impolite

to ask questions again if we did not understand her in the first place.

5.1.3 Atmosphere and Locations of Data Collection

The SSI with the AO was conducted in her office, which was rather small compared to the number of

researchers and interpreters who participated in the SSI. Therefore, a tense atmosphere might have been

created for the AO. However, the respondent did not seem to feel intimidated.

The data collection setting was more problematic while doing the SSIs with farmers. Due to the fact that

most respondents invited us in their house, it occurred that other people were present. This often resulted

in statements and interferences which made it hard to focus on the interviewee’s words. At some points

translation was difficult for the interpreters when discussions involved more persons. Furthermore, the

respondent might have been influenced by statements of other people or felt intimidated to speak freely.

It might have been better to agree on a private room, to avoid distractions during the interviews.

Agrovets in Othaya were very busy and therefore owners did not find the time to answer in a focused

way. Furthermore, two respondents asked us if the interview was paid.

SLUSE 2018

29

The atmosphere during the PRA mapping exercise was friendly and all people participated in the

discussion. Agreements during the map the exercise were made in a fairly short time. The way we

divided participants into groups did not respect to mix people from different areas. Therefore, the two

groups consisted of people from the same area.

The PRA pairwise exercise took too long since every person was asked to state his or her preference

individually for each method. However, the participants did not show fatigue or disinterest due to this

fact. In general, people were open and showed interest to participate in our research.

5.1.4 Sensible Topics During Research

Adjustments were made on questions which were considered as sensible after testing the questionnaire

with one of our hosts. In addition, question number 2.3 (civil status) was not asked anymore after finding

out that several respondents felt uncomfortable giving their answer (especially widowed people).

Furthermore, several farmers found question number 2.4 (age question) difficult to answer which caused

a slightly uncomfortable laughter in some cases. Therefore, this information was gathered through the

translators in an indirect way and then included in the questionnaire. Moreover, respondents in the

Agrovets seemed to feel uncomfortable to answer our questions. Therefore, we conclude that the topic

was considered to be sensible for them.

5.1.5 Data Reliability

There was no maize growing in the area at the time of the case study, hence no FAWs were observed

(except for one farm). If the case study would have been conducted during the maize growing season,

we might have come to different results. For example, during growing seasons the direct observation of

the infestation would be possible. The fact that FAW is new to the area and arrived in a year with a

severe drought makes the quantification of the damage caused by FAW more difficult.

Errors in questionnaires are defined as differences between the respondent’s answer and a ‘true’ answer

(Lavrakas, 2008). Question number 3.3 (number of maize bags harvested per season) in the

questionnaire relied on the estimation of the respondent which lead to striking variation in the responses.

Subjectivity might have blurred the accuracy of the answer, since the question concerning the maize

harvest is connected to the overall farm productivity and therefore the farmers’ ability and skills in

agriculture. It is possible that respondents exaggerated their answer concerning the number of bags

harvested to leave an impression of being a successful farmer. This could explain the huge variety in the

responses, that sometimes did not match the field size. Since the FAW infestation happened during the

last rainy season of 2017, we cannot exclude that people misremembered details and numbers.

SLUSE 2018

30

Leading questions occurred during the SSIs (e.g. ‘Would you like to receive more information about the

FAW pest’). Leading questions might lead to false statements that do not reflect the true thoughts and

personality of the respondents. Therefore, they should be excluded (Swann, Giuliano, & Wegner, 1982).

Several difficulties arose during the pairwise ranking exercise that might have influenced its results. For

example, the presentation of the alternative control methods was demanding for the farmers. These

control methods were new to most participants, while there was not enough time to explain them in

detail. As a result, we cannot be certain that all aspects were understood. Details might have been lost

due to translation as well This could explain the lack of questions and discussion after the presentation.

Based on this, stated preferences of methods reflected a superficial decision made in the heat of the

moment. Moreover, a distinct reflection on the methods was not possible for the respondents. Therefore,

it is doubtful how valid our results are and in how far they represent the real preferences of the

participants.

5.2 Reflection on results

5.2.1 Governmental action plan: limitations and influences of pesticide companies

As the government promotes the use pesticides (source: SSI AO), it is not likely that farmers will reduce

their application in the coming years in the region. This is underlined by the fact that the authorities

collaborate with pesticide companies with the goal of gaining knowledge and releasing official

recommendations. This may dismiss or overlook alternative pest control methods since pesticide

companies promote their own interest: selling chemical pesticides.

The fact that information posters are issued by Syngenta implies that the government shifted their

responsibility to another actor for any potential pesticide related issues.

Our findings, that several non-pesticide control methods are included in the government plan, were not

visible in the region during our field trip (source: SSIs & PO). This might be the outcome of the

mentioned collaboration. Officials would gain a broader knowledge if they were trained by independent

educational institutions or researchers without the interference of business priorities. Farmers are at the

end of this one-sided knowledge-transfer system and face disadvantages such as lack of knowledge

concerning alternative control methods.

Next to pesticide use, the government plan suggests the use of crop rotation which is also suggested on

a county level by the AO (source: SSI AO). However, literature showed that pests with a high mobility,

and a high range of host plants like the FAW, cannot be controlled to a significant degree by the use of

crop rotation (Stoner, 2012). The pairwise ranking exercise therefore reflects a lack of knowledge since

crop rotation was participant favoured method.

SLUSE 2018

31

The government is planning to introduce pheromone traps in the region of Giathenge in the next maize

growing season (source: SSI AO). However, this could be hindered by financial issues during the

implementation in relation to the limited resources that the national government provides in the county

(source: SSI AO).

5.2.2 Organisation and farmers’ knowledge

Supported by the Teshome Kumela (2018) study, we find that the majority of the questionnaire

respondents (31 out of 40) heard about the FAW and were able to recognise it from pictures that we

showed during the questionnaires.

Our research showed that the officials in the region of the Othaya are aware of the governmental program

and try to implement it (source: SSIs & AO). Therefore, the governmental plan and a knowledge-transfer

system are active in the region. However, we do not know how many people are reached by the program.

Knowledge concerning the FAW reaches farmers mainly through media and posters/brochures and not

through the available training programs. This is because the effort and the time that is needed to gain

information from the media is much lower than from attending trainings. In accordance to that, Kumela

(2018) supports that knowledge transfer systems like media, posters and training are used by the

authorities to distribute information (source: SSI AO).

Lack of participation in meetings which provide detailed information about the FAW might be related

to the limited knowledge that the majority of farmers have. A knowledge gap about the life cycle of the

FAW makes it difficult for farmers to distinguish it from other pests. That leads to inappropriate control

methods, such as applying pesticides, which are not designed to control the FAW. Thus, an important

part of the knowledge, which is tried to be transferred by the government is either not distributed in a

sufficient way or lost during the communication process.

Lack of organisation among the farmers and the involved agents (authorities) significantly reduced the

communication and the knowledge that is exchanged. As a result, farmers have to report infestations by

themselves. This makes it difficult for the government to quantify and qualify the infestation extent and

to target the help needed. A union of farmers, that would represent people’s opinions, issues and requests

could raise government awareness and trigger actions faster. Participants expressed that a representative

and the reintroduction of field officers could be beneficial for them (source: FGD).

5.2.3 Yield losses due to the FAW in Kenya in comparison to other pests

As mentioned in the introduction, the average yield loss in the Central Highlands of Kenya due to pests,

is summing up to approximately 57% for maize (Grisley, 1997). Compared to our research, the farmers

stated that the yields losses on maize due to the FAW infestation were bigger compared to other pests

and in some cases summed up to 100% (source: SSIs). The high infestation rates of the FAW on maize

SLUSE 2018

32

and its highly destructive potential is confirmed by both, Capinera, (1999) and by the SSIs findings of

our research.

Differences in yield losses compared to other pests in Africa are related to the fact that the FAW is a

new pest in Kenya and therefore management practices are still in an initial stage. The process of

planning management actions took time while the pest kept spreading. During our research, people

stated that the FAW is more aggressive and challenging than other pests in the past (SSIs). As mentioned

in the literature review, all farmers in Ethiopia and Kenya supported that the FAW infestation is more

serious and devastating than for example, a Stem borer (Maliarpha separatella) infestation (Teshome

Kumela et al., 2018).

The results of our case study show that the FAW poses a threat on food security in the region of

Giathenge, since maize is a staple food for the people. (Devi, 2018) supports this observation in a study

on the FAW undertaken in southern Africa.

Striking is, that yield losses from other countries, for example Nicaragua as described by Van Huis

(1981), are significantly lower than what our research showed. In our case study, the yield losses due to

the FAW summed up to 100% for some farmers, while the yield losses in Nicaragua were about 30-

60% (Huis, 1981) However, exaggeration of our respondents and differences in geographical conditions

(e.g. presence of natural enemies) could be the reason for this significant variation. A general conclusion

that the FAW is causing more yield losses in Africa than in America should therefore not be made.

5.2.4 Inappropriate Pesticide Application in the Region of Giathenge

Two of our respondents in the SSIs revealed that they experienced health problems in the form of allergy

due to pesticide use. This stands in contrast with findings of Kumela (2018) who did not observe any

health complaints by Kenyan farmers about chemical pesticides. However, Agrovet number 1 revealed

that many farmers complained about skin irritations after applying a specific chemical pesticide against

the FAW. This fact stresses the importance of providing knowledge on adequate and safe pesticide use.

Spraying in a constructive manner could reduce the amount sprayed and thereby save farmer’s money

while minimizing the environmental and health risks. Similarly, appropriate application of pesticides in

regard of time, amount and allocation can increase their effectiveness. The poor application of chemical

spray on maize might be related to the fact that maize did not face many pests in the past and people are

not used to spray it (source: PO). Kumela’s (2018) findings on non-chemical pesticide control methods

confirm our findings that applying soil or a tobacco mixture on maize is a practice that can be found in

Kenyan agriculture.

Our results showed that farmers are relying on maize for subsistence purpose to a great extent which

could imply their willingness to use more pesticides in order to save their harvest. However, we cannot

be certain that the use of specialised pesticides against the FAW on both maize and other crops can help

to control FAW in our case study.

SLUSE 2018

33

6 Conclusion The FAW pest is a considerable threat to maize farming in the region of Giathenge. We have observed

an extensive infestation that significantly reduced farmer’s yields in 2017 and threatened food security.

Furthermore, other problems such as droughts affect the agricultural productivity in the region and

intensify the situation.

The research revealed that farmer’s knowledge about the FAW is limited and not sufficient to manage

the pest adequately. Furthermore, government’s actions are in an initial stage and did not successfully

tackle the FAW infestation.

Farmer’s knowledge originates mainly from observations on their fields, the media, posters and

brochures. The knowledge transfer is, however, flawed in the region, as many farmers are left with a

knowledge gap about the FAW.

The agricultural officers gain knowledge on a regional level by training organised by pesticide

companies. Pesticide retailers showed limited knowledge about the FAW and the products they sell to

combat the pest.

Chemical pesticides are the most prevalent control method against the FAW in the region of Giathenge

mainly due to government promotion and their availability in Agrovets. Nonetheless, inappropriate

pesticide use was reported in the interviews and discrepancies were found between used pesticides and

the ones recommended by the government. There were no alternative control methods found besides

traditional control methods, like applying ash and soil on maize.

The potential of non-chemical control methods in Giathenge is determined by the available knowledge

of farmers and officials along communication and collaboration between them. These factors that were

significantly low. The implementation of an integrated pest management is a slow process that requires

labour and time efforts. However, it can be beneficial for both the environment and the community. The

participating farmers showed interest to learn about new alternative control methods, a factor which is

important to define their potential. Therefore, we conclude that implementing non-chemical pest control

methods are possible if the mentioned barriers are managed in the region.

SLUSE 2018

34

7 Recommendations and Future Perspectives Maize farmers in the region have to realise that the FAW will be a problem affecting their agricultural

practices from now on, since it is unlikely to exterminate the pest. Therefore, several recommendations

can be made that would help the community to manage the pest in the future.

Farmers should actively participate and take initiatives to inform themselves on how to manage the pest

effectively. This could reduce the problem of missing information. Implementing a union of farmers in

the community could improve the communication among the farmers but also between farmers and the

government. Furthermore, it could strengthen the position of farmers towards the government and arouse

attention to their problems.

The government should define effective control methods against the pest and put the bases for adequate

communication, to ensure the success of the plan. Moreover, if financial constraints are limiting the

integration of alternative control methods by farmers, financial support from the government should be

considered. In addition, it is important that the government strive to gain diverse knowledge, and not

only training from pesticide companies. The area of Giathenge and its farmers could benefit from an

integrated pest management in the future. Therefore, considering and learning about non-chemical

alternative control methods should be the first step in order to reduce the use of chemical pesticides and

their drawbacks.

SLUSE 2018

35

8 References Alcorn, J. B. (2000). Keys to unleash mapping’s good magic. PLA Notes - International Institute for

Environment and Development, (No. 39), 10–13.

Bebber, D. P., Holmes, T., & Gurr, S. J. (2014). The global spread of crop pests and pathogens: The

global spread of crop pests and pathogens. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 23(12), 1398–

1407. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12214

CABI. (2018, February 16). Invasive species compendium-Detailed coverage of invasive species

threatening livelihoods and the environment worldwide. Retrieved from

https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/29810

Capinera, J. L. (1999). fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith). Retrieved April 2, 2018,

from http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/field/fall_armyworm.htm#intro.

Davis et al., F. M. (1995). Feeding by Southwestern Corn Borer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and Fall

Armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Agric. Entomo!. Vol. 12, No.1 (1995).

Devi, S. (2018). Fall armyworm threatens food security in southern Africa. The Lancet, 391(10122),

727. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30431-8

FAO. (2017). Enhancing the fight against Fall Armyworm in Kenya | FAO in Kenya | Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved April 5, 2018, from

http://www.fao.org/kenya/news/detail-events/en/c/1068542/

FAO. (2018a). Fall armyworm spreads to East Africa : FAO in Emergencies. Retrieved April 2, 2018,

from http://www.fao.org/emergencies/fao-in-action/stories/stories-detail/en/c/882822

FAO. (2018b). Sustainable Management of the Fall Armyworm in Africa. FAO programme for action.

Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/a-bt417e.pdf

Gabriela Murúa, M., Molina-Ochoa, J., & Fidalgo, P. (2009). Natural Distribution of Parasitoids of

Larvae of the Fall Armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda, in Argentina. Journal of Insect Science,

9. https://doi.org/10.1673/031.009.2001

SLUSE 2018

36

Geddes, A. M. W., & Natural Resources Institute (Great Britain). (1990). The relative importance of

crop pests in sub-Saharan Africa. Chatham Maritime, Kent: Natural Resources Institute.

Grisley, W. (1997). Crop-pest yield loss: A diagnostic study in the Kenya highlands*. International

Journal of Pest Management, 43(2), 137–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/096708797228834

Groves, R. L. (2012, May 3). Cultural Control. Retrieved April 5, 2018, from

http://labs.russell.wisc.edu/vegento/ipm/cultural-control/

Hennink, M. M. (2013). Focus Group Discussions. Oxford University Press.

Hill, D. S. (1983). Agricultural insect pests of the tropics and their control (2. ed). Cambridge u.a: Univ.

Pr.

Hoballah, M. E., Degen, T., Bergvinson, D., Savidan, A., Tamo, C., & Turlings, T. C. J. (2004).

Occurrence and direct control potential of parasitoids and predators of the fall armyworm

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on maize in the subtropical lowlands of Mexico. Agricultural and

Forest Entomology, 6(1), 83–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-9555.2004.00207.x

Huis, A. van. (1981). Integrated pest management in the small farmer’s maize crop in Nicaragua (phd).

van Huis, Wageningen. Retrieved from http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/74659

Jaetzold, R., & Schmidt, H. (1983). Farm Management Handbook of Kenya. Vol. II. East Kenya (pp.

245-285). Kenya: Ministry of Agriculture.

Johnson, D. (n/a). Using Pheromone Traps in Field Crops. Retrieved from

https://entomology.ca.uky.edu/ef112

Kenya-Information. (2018). About Nyeri County in Kenya. Retrieved April 5, 2018, from

http://www.kenya-information-guide.com/nyeri-county.html

Kenyan State Department of Agriculture. (2017). Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda).

Konradsen, F., van der Hoek, W., Cole, D. C., Hutchinson, G., Daisley, H., Singh, S., & Eddleston, M.

(2003). Reducing acute poisoning in developing countries—options for restricting the

SLUSE 2018

37

availability of pesticides. Toxicology, 192(2–3), 249–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-

483X(03)00339-1

Kumela, T., Simiyu, J., Sisay, B., Likhayo, P., Mendesil, E., Gohole, L., & Tefera, T. (2018). Farmers’

knowledge, perceptions, and management practices of the new invasive pest, fall armyworm (

Spodoptera frugiperda ) in Ethiopia and Kenya. International Journal of Pest Management, 1–

9. https://doi.org/10.1080/09670874.2017.1423129

Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. SAGE

Publications.

Lavrakas, P. J. (2008). Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. SAGE Publications.

McCracken, J. A., Rietbergen-McCracken, J., Pretty, J. N., & Conway, G. (1988). An Introduction to

Rapid Rural Appraisal for Agricultural Development. International Institute for Environment

and Development.

Midega, C. A. O., Pittchar, J. O., Pickett, J. A., Hailu, G. W., & Khan, Z. R. (2018). A climate-adapted

push-pull system effectively controls fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J E Smith), in

maize in East Africa. Crop Protection, 105, 10–15.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2017.11.003

Narayanasamy, N. (2009). Participatory Rural Appraisal: Principles, Methods and Application. B-42,

Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi 110 017 India: SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd.

https://doi.org/10.4135/9788132108382

Nechols, J. (n/a). Ecological Consequences of Importing Natural Enemies. Kansas State University.

Retrieved from http://www.entomology.wisc.edu/mbcn/fea509.html

Oerke, E.-C. (2006). Crop losses to pests. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 144(1), 31–43.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859605005708

Rojas, J. C., Virgen, A., & Malo, E. A. (2004). Seasonal and nocturnal flight activity of spodoptera

frugiperda males (lepidoptera: noctuidae) monitored by pheromone traps in the coast of chiapas,

SLUSE 2018

38

mexico. Florida Entomologist, 87(4), 496–503. https://doi.org/10.1653/0015-

4040(2004)087[0496:SANFAO]2.0.CO;2

Sparks, A. N. (1986). Fall Armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): Potential for Area-Wide Management.

The Florida Entomologist, 69(3), 603–614. https://doi.org/10.2307/3495397

Stoner, K. A. (2012). Management of Insect Pests with Crop Rotation and Field Layout. Retrieved April

5, 2018, from https://www.sare.org/Learning-Center/Books/Crop-Rotation-on-Organic-

Farms/Text-Version/Physical-and-Biological-Processes-In-Crop-Production/Management-of-

Insect-Pests-with-Crop-Rotation-and-Field-Layout

Swann, W. B., Giuliano, T., & Wegner, D. M. (1982). Where leading questions can lead: The power of

conjecture in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(6), 1025–

1035. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.6.1025

Tim Russell. (1997). Pair wise ranking made easy. PLA Notes (1997), Issue 28, Pp.25–26, IIED London.

Wahome, J. (2016). All on pests and diseases that stop your produce from reaching. Retrieved April 5,

2018, from https://www.nation.co.ke/business/seedsofgold/diseases-that-stop-your-produce-

from-reaching-export-market/2301238-3112876-k7pslu/index.html

Wawa, B. (n.d.). Scientists tackle deadly fall armyworm infestation devastating maize in southern Africa

| CIMMYT. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center. Retrieved April 5, 2018, from

http://www.cimmyt.org/tackling-the-deadly-fall-armyworm-infestation-devastating-maize-in-

southern-africa/

Zehnder, G. (2011). Planning Crop Location and Timing to Avoid Insect Pests - eXtension. Retrieved

April 5, 2018, from http://articles.extension.org/pages/18575/planning-crop-location-and-

timing-to-avoid-insect-pests

SLUSE 2018

I

9 Appendices Appendix 1: Synopsis

Appendix 2: Updated Questionnaire

Appendix 3: Updated SSI guide

Appendix 4: Updated PRA and Focus group guideline

Appendix 5: Overview of the applied methods

Appendix 6: Overview of the conducted SSIs

Appendix 7: Research design

Appendix 8: Recommendation Posters

SLUSE 2018

II

Final Synopsis

Control methods strategies against the pest “Fall Armyworm” in Nyeri County,

Kenya

Interdisciplinary Land Use and Natural Resource Management (5440-B3-3F18)

23.02.2018

Iason Koutroumpelas - trl799

Manon Bourqui - bmq694

Laura Møller Schmidt - frv103

Simon Siantidis - bsr899

Supervisors: Christian Pilegaard Hansen & Lise Tjørring

SLUSE 2018

III

Table of Contents Introduction...............................................................................................................................................IVMethodology..............................................................................................................................................VI

Participatory observation.................................................................................................................................................VIIQuestionnaire......................................................................................................................................................................VIISemi-Structured Interview...............................................................................................................................................VIIMap using a GPS..............................................................................................................................................................VIIIParticipatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)..........................................................................................................................VIIIFocus Group......................................................................................................................................................................VIII

References..................................................................................................................................................IXAppendix.....................................................................................................................................................XI

Matrix......................................................................................................................................................XI

Timetable.............................................................................................................................................XIII

Questionnaire concerning the Fall Armyworm infestation in Giathenge, Kenya......................XV1. General information......................................................................................................................................................XV2. Background information about the respondents....................................................................................................XV3. Respondents interconnection with the FAW pest..................................................................................................XV4. Respondents knowledge concerning the FAW pest.............................................................................................XVI5. Respondents actions to manage the FAW infestation.........................................................................................XVI6. Further contact............................................................................................................................................................XVII

Semi-Structured Interviews Guide...............................................................................................XVIII

PRA and Focus Group Guide...........................................................................................................XXI Abbreviations CABI: Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International

FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FAW: Fall Armyworm

KALRO: Kenya Agricultural & Livestock Research Organization

KEPHIS: Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service

PCPB: Pest Control Products Board

ICIPE: International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology

SLUSE 2018

IV

Introduction Pests3 on agricultural crops, which negatively affect production, livelihoods and food security have been

part of the history of sub-saharan countries including Kenya (Geddes, 1990). Production levels of staple

crops are hindered by yield losses through pests in the highlands of Kenya. Grisley (1997) estimated

yield losses for maize and beans at 57% and 42% in the Central Highlands of Kenya, which shows the

relative importance of pests. As James Wahome (2016), the ‘Acting General Manager’ of the

‘Phytosanitary Services’ at Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services (Kephis) explains, there can be

six common major pests outlined, which affect agricultural crops in Kenya. Among these pests are the

Thaumatotibia leucotreta, Liriomyza spp, Bemisia tabaci, Bactrocera invadens, Ralstonia solanacearum

and Tuta absoluta (Wahome, 2016). However, African countries including Kenya have to face a new

threat for their agricultural production. Still recovering from the aftermaths of a heavy drought in 2016,

Kenya experienced devastating impacts of the Spodoptera Frugiperda, 'Fall Armyworm' (FAW) pest for

the first time in 2017 (FAO, 2017). The FAW is a migratory pest and native to tropic and subtropic

regions of the Americas. First evidence of the FAW in Africa was found in 2016 in Central and Western

African countries. It feeds on over 80 plant species and can cause tremendous destruction and yield

reduction of major crops such as maize, if not managed adequately (CABI, 2018).

Food security and livelihoods are endangered by the FAW in Kenya, as maize is the main staple crop

for many smallholder farmers in Kenya and in Nyeri County, the area of the field study (FAO, 2017b).

The FAW prefers to feed on maize. Action is needed urgently to manage the impacts of the pest and to

keep them low. As a part of this management, scientific assessments of the agricultural, economic and

social impacts of the FAW pest in Kenya are necessary (FAO, 2017b). Moreover, these assessments are

scarce until now due to the recency of the pest in Africa and farmers lack of knowledge on how to

manage the pest efficiently. This leaves a knowledge gap about which or if measures are currently

operating in the region of Nyeri to enhance knowledge concerning the pest. This shall be focused in the

field study (FAO, 2017b).

However, as national food security is due to the FAW pest an explicit concern, political actions to tackle

the FAW infestation in Kenya were launched by the ‘Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fishery’ in

2017. It introduced an multi-institutional team with experts of institutions of the ‘Kenya Agricultural &

Livestock Research Organization’ (KALRO), the ‘Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service’ (KEPHIS),

the ‘Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International’ (CABI), the ‘Pest Control Products Board’

(PCPB), the ‘International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology’ (ICIPE), the 'Plant Protection

Services' and the 'State Department of Agriculture of Kenya'. Since then studies concerning the FAW

pest in Kenya are scarce, the governmental programme emphasises the buildup of capacities on a

3 In this context, ‘pest’ is defined as the occurrence of damage to a plant through an insect (Hill, 1983)

SLUSE 2018

V

national and county level concerning monitoring, problem identification and management (Kenyan State

Department of Agriculture, 2017). This takes place through trainings for public and private service

providers, sellers and applicants of pesticides, researchers, farmers and the public. Part of these training

programmes aims to provide knowledge on how to detect the FAW as part of an early warning system,

which is complemented by monitoring the plants to recognize early stage damages. Furthermore,

technical skills are being instructed. These include recommendations of early planting patterns or the

use of pheromone mass traps (Kenyan State Department of Agriculture, 2017). Although the programme

includes the knowledge transfer of chemical pesticide use, such as Diazinon or Alpha Cypermethrin,

alternative, sustainable, non-chemical pesticide methods are not included in the teaching programme, a

fact that create questions to what extent farmers are aware of non-chemical pesticide management

methods and if they are applied (Kenyan State Department of Agriculture, 2017).

As programmes, which are carried out to tackle the FAW pest in Kenya include the distribution of

chemical pesticides to maize farmers, who are not accustomed to applying pesticides in maize farming.

Issues might arise eventually, since ingredients of pesticides have shown to be toxic for the human health

and the environment (Damalas, 2011). Exposure to toxic chemical pesticide ingredients is the most

common health threat for farmers in developing countries (Konradsen, 2003). Furthermore, poor

pesticide application can lead to environmental and economical drawbacks and should therefore be of

concern. Due to these reasons, sustainable agricultural practices need to be promoted in Kenya, and non-

chemical pesticide alternatives should be taken into account (FAO, 2017b). To contribute to a more

sustainable pest management approach, the research question of the field trip is: What is the potential

of non-chemical-pesticide adaptive methods of the FAW infestation in Giathenge (Nyeri)?

As mentioned above different control methods can be used against the FAW attacks and though the fall

Armyworm may be relatively new in Africa, it is a well-known pest on the American continents

(FAO,2017). Therefore, it can be useful to take a look at methods already being used in preventing the

FAW infestation.

Some existing management practices can be adopted directly, after a validation performed by tests

(FAO,2017b). The use of pesticides is the most common response to FAW infestations but probably not

the most suitable one. Most smallholders in Africa do not apply pesticides in maize farming and the

introduction of pesticides in maize might lead the production to be economically unsustainable, as

continuously buying pesticides will increase the expenses of the production (FAO, 2017b). Moreover,

pesticides negatively affect the distribution and diversity of natural enemies of the FAW, enemies that

would naturally help regulate the FAW population (FAO, 2017b). And as already mentioned, chemical

pesticides can be harmful for humans and the environment.

There are several alternative methods to chemical pesticides:

SLUSE 2018

VI

Biological pesticides: There are different biological pesticides that can substitute the use of chemical

insecticides. These pesticides are usually by-products of parasites and pathogens and have been applied

in many American countries with high efficiency against FAW. At the time, there are not available

papers in the application of biological pesticides in the African region and Kenya, however, FAO and

other agents are planning to promote integrated pest management practices in the long term.

Push-pull method: According to Midega et al. (2017) a study in Kenya showed that the damage from

the FAW on the plants decreased and the yield of maize got significantly higher, when using a push-

pull method. This can be achieved by intercropping grasses that will either repel or attract the pest.

Introducing natural enemies: The FAW has a variety of natural enemies, predators, parasitoids and

pathogens, that attacks the FAW in different stages of its life cycle. Natural enemies can be important

in order to control the pest (Cabi, 2018). There are a lot of natural enemies of the FAW. The complication

with introduction of these are depending on the particular case and if the specific species are indigenous

to the area or not.

Hybrid plants, GMCs: Cross-pollinated and genetic modified plants that have been introduced mainly

in the Americas, seems to effectively regulate the density of FAW in maize (e.g. Bacillus thuringiensis

maize) (Chilcutt el al., 2006).

Pheromone traps: Pheromone traps are considered an effective tool to detect the arriving of the FAW

and other pests and thereby act as an early warning system. Pheromone traps can be helpful in tracking

migration patterns of FAW´s and monitoring of the speed in which the pest is spreading. (FAO,2017).

These different alternatives might serve a more economical and environmental sustainable way, to

control pests in small-scale maize farming in Kenya. Before any changes are done it is important to

consider the complications and pitfalls existing in the various methods.

Nevertheless, there is no literature to be found in whether the governmental programme is active in the

region around Othaya in Nyeri, which will be the location area of the field study. Thus, it is going to be

essential to examine the knowledge of farmers concerning the FAW pest to understand why and how

certain pest management methods are used.

Methodology The study is interested in gaining a deeper understanding of people's thinking concerning pest stresses

and how a community as a whole reacts in such a situation. Different actors such as farmers, pesticide

retailers or state officials are affected differently by the pest and therefore perceptions of the pest will

presumably differ. As we assume a close link between the perception of the pest and the acceptance of

management methods, the field study aims at examining the link between perceptions and actions and

look at the potentials of alternative non-chemical pesticide management methods. We are a group of

SLUSE 2018

VII

people from various academic backgrounds and cultural traditions, thus our approach on the field will

be a combination of diverse methods. The field study will give us knowledge from indigenous people

but also from each other under various conditions. In order to answer our research question and

objectives, the following section is describing our proposed methods. The high number of persons in

our group will allow us to split in different groups for work tasks. However, that means we need to have

a good communication between members and write down all the information we receive.

Participatory observation

During all the fieldwork in appropriate moments, some observations may be done in various forms. To

participate in the everyday life is a good way to gain information and some practices/behaviors that

might not be conducted through interviews or questionnaires because they not always happen on a verbal

level. If possible and with the agreement of the person, notes can be taken during the observation.

Otherwise a moment should be taken afterwards to have a written path in order to share the information

with the other members of the group. This method can provide, for example, information about the

knowledge of the farmers concerning the pest and also about practices, that farmers execute but do not

expect to influence the pest. Nevertheless, these practices can be relevant for our report.

Questionnaire

Questionnaires will be the first main step of our data collecting. The questionnaires will be conducted

with the help of an interpreter to translate the written questions and then in reverse to translate the answer

of the respondent. The group’s target will be the farmers themselves with a goal of approximately 40

participants. This aims at answering various of our objectives. First, it will give us an idea of the

repartition of the pest on the land and how it impacts the household and assess the maize losses.

Secondly, it will bring us an idea of the knowledge of the farmers about the pest and how they gained

this knowledge. Finally, questions will be asked about actions taken to control the pest and if the farmers

use pesticides.

Semi-Structured Interview

The semi-structured interview will be conducted with three different group of actors. The first one is, in

continuity with questionnaires, with the group of farmers. The questionnaires will help as a support to

conduct the interviews and choose a smaller group of participants (5-10 Interviews) who are of our

interest to answer our objectives. The objectives we attend to answer with this method is focusing on a

deeper overview of the farmers’ knowledge about the pest, the control methods applied and their

limitations or advantages. As well it will be observed if the pest influences the food security of the

household in respect of economical, changes of habits or/and others unknown aspects.

SLUSE 2018

VIII

The second group of actors will consist of a representative of the government with a number of

approximately 2-3 interviewees. Those interviews aim at learning about a more general point of view

and at trying to understand the position of the government, if for example they provide some help to the

farmers to control the pest. The last group will be interviewed will be pesticide resellers with again

approximately 2-3 interviews. The focus of those interviews will be on learning what they advise to

control the pest and their knowledge of it.

Map using a GPS

Closely linked with the questionnaires and the interviews 2 distinct map will be made. The first map

will be a GPS point map representing the area where we saw the FAW or that the farmers told us having

some. As mentioned, these observations will be done during the questionnaires and the interviews but

could also be done during some participatory observations. The second map is also a GPS map but this

time with various colors points representing the different methods used to control the pest. These two

maps have the purpose to answer the repartition of the pest objective in addition to represent

geographically the distribution of the various methods.

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)

The PRA method will help us to have a better representation of our field area, gain valuable knowledge

about the control method with a perspective of a group of people from the indigenous community. The

two PRA will take place during a meeting we will organise. The first PRA method is a mapping exercise

of the area where they live with the position of the maize field. Then we will ask them to draw where

pest touched the area and finally add the control methods they take/took.

The second PRA exercise is a ranking type with pairwise table. We will first explain simply using some

pictures of some methods already applied in other places (that could be some methods they already use)

to the guests of the meeting. Then, they will have to fill the table comparing two methods which one

they think being the best in their case. It will be followed by a small discussion about the reasons they

choose such method more than another. This method aims to show us the acceptance of the various

methods and the pros and cons.

Focus Group

A focus group will follow the PRA method with the same group of people. We will ask the people who

were interviewed to come and open to who is interesting to the topic. We hope that the practical exercises

before will lead the people to an open discussion. The discussion will focus on the future plan the farmers

wish to take and observe how they want to organize themselves in order to control the pest. What are

the barriers to implement such methods and will show us if some sources of knowledge are more

influential than others?

SLUSE 2018

IX

References

CABI (2018): Invasive species compendium-Detailed coverage of invasive species threatening

livelihoods and the environment worldwide. [Online] Last accessed 16/02/2018.

https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/29810

Chilcutt. F.C, Odvody.G.N, Correa. J. C, Remmers.J (2006): Effects of Bacillus thuringiensis

Transgenic Corn on Corn Earworm and Fall Armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Densities

Entomologocal Society of America. [Online] Last accessed 18/02/2018

http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1603/0022-

0493%282007%29100%5B327%3AEOBTTC%5D2.0.CO%3B2

FAO (2017a): Fall armyworm spreads to East Africa; [Online] Last accessed: 16/02/2018

http://www.fao.org/emergencies/fao-in-action/stories/stories-detail/en/c/882822/

FAO (2017b): Sustainable Management of the Fall Armyworm in Africa. FAO programme for action.

[Online] Last accessed: 22/02/2018

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1t_gHJW_-rvhhyoo5rSbcN5g1FcHOEQZ8

Grisley, W.(1997): Crop-pest yield loss: a diagnostic study in the Kenya highlands. International

Journal of Pest Management, 43(2), pp.137-142.

Hoeschle-Zeledon, I., P. Neuenschwander and L. Kumar.( 2018): Regulatory challenges for biological

control. The CGIAR System wide Program on Integrated Pest Management.

Hill, D.S., (1983): Agricultural insect pests of the tropics and their control. CUP Archive.

Kenyan State Department of Agriculture (2017): Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda)

Konradsen, F., van der Hoek, W., Cole, D.C., Hutchinson, G., Daisley, H., Singh, S. and Eddleston,

M.(2003): Reducing acute poisoning in developing countries ,options for restricting the availability of

pesticides. Toxicology, 192(2-3), pp.249-261.

Midega C.A.O, Pittchar J .O, Pickett .J .A, Halilu .G.W, Kahn. Z.R. (2017): (A climate-adapted push-

pull system effectively controls fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J E Smith), in maize in East

Africa. International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (icipe), Nairobi, Kenya.

SLUSE 2018

X

John L. Capinera. (1999). common name: fall armyworm scientific name: Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E.

Smith) (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). [Online] Last accessed 17/02/2018

http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/field/fall_armyworm.htm#intro.

Idrissa Maiga et al., (2017). the Fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda, the new maize pest in West

Africa, has reached Niger. [Online] Last accessed 16/02/2018.

http://www.agrhymet.ne/eng/PDF/Bulletin%20special%20Chenille_eng.pdf.

SLUSE 2018

XI

Appendix

Matrix Research Question(s) Objectives Sub-Questions Data Required Methods Equipment

What is the potential of non-chemical pesticide adaptive methods of the FAW infestation in Giathenge?

Assessment of the distribution of the pest on the field

1. Where the pest is observed? 2. Do certain geographical factors influence the extent of the pest? 3. When was the pest first discover in the area?

Geographical conditions

Mapping Questionnaire PRA mapping Participatory observation Interview

GPS Pen and paper

Assessment of maize yield losses due to Spodoptera frugiperda infestation and other parameters

1. What is the economic impact of the lost yield? How much money do people lose? 2. Is the food security in the area threatened due to the pest? 3. What kind of other parameters (pest) can induce a loss in the maize field? Is it possible to isolate yield losses due to the pest from other causes?

Numbers of yield and losses (in percentage or estimates/ perceptions) 1 2 3 Ask farmer and government

Interview Focus Group Questionnaire

GPS Pen and paper Audio recorder?

Assessment of present knowledge of the farmers concerning the pest

1. How do actors identify the pest 2. What do they know about the pest biology (life cycle)?

Interview Questionnaire

Pen and paper Audio recorder

Assessment of the origin of the recommendations of knowledge / actions /pesticides

1. Who is providing knowledge? 2. How is knowledge transferred? 3. Are there differences in the quality of provided knowledge?

Programme brochures

Participatory observation Interview Focus Group

SLUSE 2018

XII

What actions are taken to manage the pest by individuals and why?

1. Who is using which strategies due to which reasons (access, costs, knowledge)? Why do they differ? 2. Assessment of the success of the applied strategies 3. Where are pesticides used?

Prices of pesticides Interviews

Questionnaire Interview PRA comparative Mapping Participatory observation

Poster/ material to illustrate

What are the alternative methods to control and prevent the FAW ( to substitute chemical pesticides) and how is the acceptance of famers on these alternatives?

1. Push pull systems 2. Pheromone traps 3. Communication platform (prevention method)? 4. Biological control 5. Natural enemies 6.Is their application possible? What are the costs? Will they be beneficial for farmers?

Studies from different countries

Questionnaires Interviews PRA and Focus group Participatory observation

Audio recorder Pen and paper

(How is the communal life affected by the pest? )

1. Do people feel left alone with the problem? 2. How do people assign responsibility concerning the pest (management or maybe cause)? 3. Do management actions of some affect others? Do people work together or do conflicts arise? 4. How does the community react as a whole?

PRA Focus group Interviews

Posters/ material to illustrate Audio recorder

SLUSE 2018

XIII

Timetable

Friday 2 Saturday 3 Sunday 4 Monday 5 Tuesday 6 Wednesday 7

Goal of the day

Person in charge of the day

Iason Laura Simon Manon Iason Laura

Morning Travelling from Nairobi Wangari Maathai Day Church

Questionnaires + GPS

Points / Contact

government and

pesticide company

Interview government

/pesticide

Interview government

/pesticide

Lunch

Afternoo

n

Exploring area, meeting

new friends and

observatory methods

Questionnaire + GPS

Points

Questionnaires + GPS

Points

More Questionnaire? /

analzing data we have for

interview

Interview government

/pesticide Interview farmer

Dinner

Evening Meeting and Test the

Questionnaires Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting

SLUSE 2018

XIV

Thursday 8 Friday 9 Saturday10 Sunday 11 Monday 12 Tuesday 13

Goal of the day

Person in charge of the day

Simon Manon Iason Laura Simon Manon

Morning Interview farmer Interview farmer Interview farmer Church ? Feedback in Othaya Back to Nairobi

Lunch

Afternoon Interview farmer Interview farmer Focus group + PRA of

dfrawing

Dinner

Evening Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting Farewell party

SLUSE 2018

XV

Questionnaire concerning the Fall Armyworm infestation in Giathenge, Kenya

For the surveyors: Remember to inform the respondents thoroughly about the purpose (topic, how the data will be used, learning purpose). Introduce yourself and present the goal of the survey. It makes sense to ask the respondent before conducting the interview if they grow maize on their land to avoid wasting time giving out questionnaires to people who do not grow maize.

1. General information

GPS point: Interviewer:

Date and time: Translator:

Interview number:

2. Background information about the respondents

2.1. What is your full name (optional) ? 2.2. What year were you born/ how old are you? 2.3. How many persons live in your house? 2.4. What is your position in your household? 2.5. How many years did you go to school? 2.6. What is your occupation/job?

3. Respondents interconnection with the FAW pest

3.1. Do you use any pesticide? 3.2. How many bags/kg/other measurements of maize do you usually harvest (estimation)?

SLUSE 2018

XVI

3.3. What do you do with your maize (Circle more than one answer if needed)? a. Eat it b. Sell it c. Trade it d. Others: ___________________________________________________

3.4. Did you experience significant maize yield losses last year?

a. Yes b. No c. Do not know

3.4.1 If yes, can you estimate your maize yield losses (bags or other named measurement method)? 3.4.2 If yes, were your maize yield losses bigger compared to other years?

a. Yes b. No c. Do not know

4. Respondents knowledge concerning the FAW pest

4.1. Do you know the Fall Armyworm? (Picture) a. Yes b. No

4.2. Have you seen it on your fields?

a. Yes b. No c. Do not know

4.3. If yes, do you think it is responsible for your maize yield losses?

a. Yes b. No c. Do not know

5. Respondents actions to manage the FAW infestation

5.1. Did you ever take actions to manage yield losses on your maize fields? a. Yes b. No

5.1.2. If yes which management methods do or did you use?

SLUSE 2018

XVII

5.2. Did you ever take special actions to manage the FAW pest? a. Yes b. No

5.2.1 If yes, do or did you use any of these control methods?:

a. Chemical pesticide b. Others:

c. Do not know

6. Further contact

6.1. Would you agree to do an interview concerning the topic? a. Yes b. No

6.2 If yes, how can we contact you? Telephone number?

For the surveyor: Ask if the respondent has some questions and don’t forget to thanks for taking some time for the survey. Surveyor’s notes:

SLUSE 2018

XVIII

Semi-Structured Interviews Guide How do we select interviewees based on results of the questionnaires? Proposed number of interviewees: 5-10 persons Selection criteria:

1. Must be affected by the Fall Armyworm pest (based on own perception) 2. Takes actions to manage the pest 3. Does not take action to manage the pest 4. Gave consent to do an interview in questionnaire

Number 2 and 3 allows us to form ‘groups’ of people that might be compared. Leading question for the SSIs with farmers (order might change during interview)

1. Introduce our project and our research goal

2. How do you experience the worms presence?

3. When did you observed it for the first time?

4. Is it different from other pests that you experienced?

5. Can you identify the Fall Armyworm? How do you do it?

6. Do you have knowledge about its life cycle? (Moths and caterpillars look, where and

when they lay their eggs? About its rapid distribution in the field)

7. How do you control the pest in the field? Do you use preventive methods? Do you use

monitoring methods?

8. How did you choose the management method that you are applying and why? How did

you learn them? Do they success?

9. If not already stated: Do you use pesticides? What is their price? Do you consider them

to be expensive? Where do you buy them? How do you apply them? Who showed you

to use them? Do you think they are effective against the pest?

10. For farmers who do not apply any method yet: Why are you not taking actions to control

the pest yet? Costs, knowledge, labour time?

11. How did the yield losses/ the pest affect the food supply for your household? What did

you do to compensate the losses? (Eating less, taking other jobs to earn money etc.)

12. Do you know other people in the community that are affected by the pest? Do you help

each other? Did somebody help you?

SLUSE 2018

XIX

How do we select interviewees, who are working or owning pesticide shops? Proposed number of interviewees: 2-5 Selection criteria:

1. Owning or working in a chemical pesticide retail shop 2. Willing to speak with us

Leading questions for the SSIs with pesticide shop owners/ workers (order might change)

1. Introduce our project and our research goal

2. Have you heard of the Fall Armyworm pest?

3. When did you first hear about it? When did it come to this region?

4. Can you identify it or distinguish from other pests? What do you know about its life

cycle? (Moths and caterpillars look, where and when they lay their eggs? About its rapid

distribution in the field)

5. Where did you get your knowledge about the pest?

6. Is it different from other pests? Do you recommend a specific pesticide do fight it? Did

the demand or sale for chemical pesticides go up to fight it?

7. Do you only sell pesticides, or do you also give advice to farmers on how to use them?

If yes, how does your advice look like?

8. Is there other methods that can be used with (chemical) pesticides?

9. Do you recommend only pesticides?

SLUSE 2018

XX

How do we select interviewees, who are governmental official? Proposed number of interviewees: As many as available Selection criteria:

1. Is a governmental official working in the agricultural field? Leading questions for the SSIs with governmental officials (order might change)

1. Introduce our project and our research goal

2. When was the pest first observed in the region?

3. Is it different from other pests in relation to yield losses, distribution?

4. What do you think about the pest? How does it affect the region (Nyeri, Othaya) and its

farmers?

5. Have you/ the government quantified the impacts of the pest? (economical losses, yield

losses)

6. How do you evaluate the knowledge of the farmers about the pest? Do they know

enough to deal with it?

7. Is there a plan active in the region? To what extent? (Does this control programme differ

from other programmes in the past/ compared to the pests?)

8. Do the governmental actors provide/ distribute enough information and money to the

farmers to control the pest?

9. What do you think about pesticides use? Do you consider it a long-term solution?

10. What is the next step? Dow do you plan to control the pest in the future?

11. Do you believe the future plan will be effective and why?

SLUSE 2018

XXI

PRA and Focus Group Guide

Plan for the PRA-Mapping

- Make different groups

- Let these group do maps of the area including their maize fields and worm attacks and

the various methods applied.

- This will take place in different steps.

- After and during we will discuss the results of the maps and the methods used in the

community and why and how it works.

Material needed:

Big papers, markers in different colors, beverages and snacks

Plan PRA: Pair-wise ranking /compare alternative control methods

Q. Which is method is the best

GMO/Hybrid Push-pull Pheromone

traps

introduce

natural

enemies

early

warning

social app

GMO/Hybrid

Push-pull

Pheromone

traps

introduce

natural

enemies

early warning

social app

SLUSE 2018

XXII

Plan for the focus group discussion

- Discussion of future plans / desires or what is most likely to be taken into consideration

- What are the complications with the implementations of the different methods

SLUSE 2018

XXIII

Appendix 2 Updated Questionnaire concerning the Fall Armyworm infestation inGiathenge, KenyaFor the surveyors: Remember to inform the respondents thoroughly about the purpose(topic, how the data will be used, learning purpose). Introduce yourself and present the goal ofthe survey. It makes sense to ask the respondent before conducting the interview if they growmaize on their land to avoid wasting time giving out questionnaires to people who do notgrow maize.We are students of Copenhagen University and Nairobi university. And we are here toinvestigate the pest FAW on maize and possible solutions against the pest . All of the answerswill stay NN1. General information GPS point: Interviewer:

Date and time: Translator:

Interview number:

2. Background information about the respondents2.1. How many persons live in your house?2.2 How long have you lived here?2.3. What are you civil status-Married-Single-Widow-Divorced2.4. When were you born? Year?2.5. What is your position in your household?- head of household-other2.6. What is you level of education?2.7. What is your occupation/job?2.8. Do you have other sources of incomes?Ex. pension, business2.9. How much land do you own?2.10. How much of your land is rented?

SLUSE 2018

XXIV

3. Respondents interconnection with the FAW pest3.1. Did you use any chemical pesticides last year?If yes: on which crops?CoffeeMaizeOther Veggies3.2. how many acres/m2 of maize field do have?3.3. How many bags/kg/other measurements of maize do you usually harvest(estimation)?

3.4. how many times a year do you harvests maize? and when?3.5 Do you have different varieties of maize?3.6. What do you do with your maize (Circle more than one answer if needed)?a. Eat itb. Sell itc. Trade itd. Others: ___________________________________________________3.7. Do you use any fertilizer?-yes-no3.7.1 If yes: what kind?3.8. Did you experience significant maize yield losses last year?a. Yesb. Noc. Do not know3.8. What were the main challenges that coursed the losses last year?3.9 If yes, were your maize yield losses bigger compared to other years?a. Yesb. Noc. Do not know4. Respondents knowledge concerning the FAW pest4.1. Do you know the Fall Armyworm? (Picture)a. Yesb. No4.2. Have you seen it on your fields?a. Yes

SLUSE 2018

XXV

b. Noc. Do not knowd. Neighbours4.3. If yes, do you think it is responsible for your yield losses on maize?a. Yesb. Noc. Do not know5. Respondents actions to manage the FAW infestation5.1. Did you take actions to manage yield losses on your maize fields last year?a. Yesb. No5.1.2. If yes which management methods do or did you use?

5.2. Did you ever take special actions to manage the FAW pest?a. Yesb. No5.2.1 If yes, do or did you use any of these control methods to manage the FAW pest?:a. Chemical pesticideb. Otherc. Do not know6. Further contact6.1. Would you agree to do an interview concerning the topic?a. Yesb. No6.2 If yes, how can we contact you? Telephone number?What is your name ?For the surveyor: Ask if the respondent has some questions and don’t forget to thanks fortaking some time for the survey.Surveyor’s notes:

SLUSE 2018

XXVI

Appendix 3

Semi-Structured Interviews GuideHow do we select interviewees based on results of the questionnaires?Proposed number of interviewees: 5-10 personsSelection criteria:1. Must be affected by the Fall Armyworm pest (based on own perception)2. Takes actions to manage the pest3. Does not take action to manage the pest4. Gave consent to do an interview in questionnaireNumber 2 and 3 allows us to form ‘groups’ of people that might be compared.Updated guiding questions for the SSIs with farmers (order might change during interview)1. Introduce our project and our research goal2. How do you experience the worms presence?3. When did you observed it for the first time?4. Is it different from other pests that you experienced?5. Can you identify the Fall Armyworm? How do you do it?6. Do you have knowledge about its life cycle? (Moths and caterpillars look, where andwhen they lay their eggs? About its rapid distribution in the field)7. How do you control the pest in the field? Do you use preventive methods? Do you usemonitoring methods?8. How did you choose the management method that you are applying and why? Howdid you learn them? Do they success?9. If not already stated: Do you use pesticides? What is their price? Do you considerthem to be expensive? Where do you buy them? How do you apply them? Whoshowed you to use them? Do you think they are effective against the pest?10. For farmers who do not apply any method yet: Why are you not taking actions tocontrol the pest yet? Costs, knowledge, labour time?11. How did the yield losses/ the pest affect the food supply for your household? What didyou do to compensate the losses? (Eating less, taking other jobs to earn money etc.)12. Do you know other people in the community that are affected by the pest? Do youhelp each other? Did somebody help you?

SLUSE 2018

XXVII

13. Did you report the infestation to an official?14. Why do you think are you affected? How do we select interviewees, who are working or owning pesticide shops? Proposed number of interviewees: 2-5Selection criteria:

1. Owning or working in a chemical pesticide retail shop 2. Willing to speak with us

Updated guiding questions for the SSIs with pesticide shop owners/ workers (order might change)

1. Introduce our project and our research goal

2. Have you heard of the Fall Armyworm pest?

3. When did you first hear about it? When did it come to this region?

4. Can you identify it or distinguish from other pests? What do you know about its life cycle? (Moths and caterpillars look, where and when they lay their eggs? About its rapid distribution in the field)

5. Where did you get your knowledge about the pest, maize seeds and pesticides?

6. Is it different from other pests? Do you recommend a specific pesticide do fight it? Did

the demand or sale for chemical pesticides go up to fight it?

7. Do you only sell pesticides, or do you also give advice to farmers on how to use them? If yes, how does your advice look like?

8. Is there other methods that can be used with (chemical) pesticides?

9. Do you recommend only pesticides?

10. Do you think some maize varieties are more resistant?

11. Who decides the price of the pesticides?

12. Did many people buy pesticides to fight the FAW?

13. Do you think pesticides are affordable for everyone?

14. What do you think about biological control methods?

SLUSE 2018

XXVIII

How do we select interviewees, who are governmental official?

Proposed number of interviewees: As many as availableSelection criteria:

1. Is a governmental official working in the agricultural field? Updated guiding questions for the SSIs with governmental officials (order might change)

1. Introduce our project and our research goal

2. When was the pest first observed in the region?

3. Is it different from other pests in relation to yield losses, distribution?

4. What do you think about the pest? How does it affect the region (Nyeri, Othaya) and its farmers?

5. Have you/ the government quantified the impacts of the pest? (economical losses, yield

losses)

6. How do you evaluate the knowledge of the farmers about the pest? Do they know enough to deal with it?

7. Is there a plan active in the region? To what extent? (Does this control programme differ

from other programmes in the past/ compared to the pests?)

8. Do the governmental actors provide/ distribute enough information and money to the farmers to control the pest? What about the pesticide samples?

9. What do you think about pesticides use? Do you consider it a long-term solution?

10. What is the next step? Dow do you plan to control the pest in the future?

11. Do you believe the future plan will be effective and why?

12. Do you think there are disadvantages in the use of pesticides?

13. Do you know/promote other methods?

14. Are there other agricultural organizations active in the region? (e.g. FIPS Africa, CABI)

15. If yes. How do they work? What kind of help do they provide? Are they in contract with

the government?

SLUSE 2018

XXIX

Appendix 4

Updated PRA plan Plan for the PRA-Mapping

- Make different groups

- Let these group do maps of the area including their maize fields and worm attacks and

the various methods applied.

- This will take place in different steps.

- After and during we will discuss the results of the maps and the methods used in the

community and why and how it works.

Material needed:

Big papers, markers in different colors, beverages and snacks

SLUSE 2018

XXX

Plan PRA: Pair-wise ranking /compare alternative control methods

Q. Which is method is the best

Resistant varieties Promote

biodiversity

(push-pull)

Monitoring Pheromone traps Early warning

social app

(sms)

Crop rotation Earlu planting

Resistant varieties

Promote biodiversitz

(push-pull)

Monitoring

Pheromone traps

Early warning social

app (app)

Crop rotation

Early warning social

app

SLUSE 2018

XXXI

Updated Focus Group Discussion Following subjects will be discussed:

• Future plans for fighting the FAW pest

• Which alternative control methods is most likely to be taken into account, and why.

• Advantages and disadvantages

• Collaboration – working together in monitoring the FAW pest

SLUSE 2018

XXXII

Figure 10. Map made during PRA mapping exercise

SLUSE 2018

XXXIII

Appendix 5

Overview of applied methods

Overview of applied methods

40 Questionnaires

1 Pilot Test of Questionnaire

1 Observation

1 Transect Walk

8 Semi-Structured Interviews with Farmers

5 Semi-Structured Interviews with Agrovets

1 Semi-Structured Interview with Officer

2 Participatory Rural Appraisal exercises

1 Focus Group meeting

SLUSE 2018

XXXIV

Appendix 6 Overview of the conducted SSIs Interview number 1 Interview number 10Name: Jacke Name: Agrovet 1Date: 06/03/2018 Date: 07/03/2018Interview number 2 Interview number 11Name: Margaret 1 Name: Agrovet 2Date: 06/03/2018 Date: 07/03/2018Interview number 3 Interview number 12Name: Myryam Name: Agrovet 3Date: 06/03/2018 Date: 07/03/2018Interview number 4 Interview number 13Name: Benson Name: Agrovet 4Date: 07/03/2018 Date: 07/03/2018Interview number 5 Interview number 14Name: Lucy Name: Agrovet 5Date: 06/03/2018 Date: 07/03/2018Interview number 6Name: AgnesDate: 06/03/2018Interview number 7Name Margaret 2Date: 07/03/2018Interview number 8Name: RoseDate: 06/03/2018Interview number 9Name: Agricultural OfficerDate: 07/06/2018

SLUSE 2018

XXXV

Appendix 7 Research Design This single-case study took place from the 2th to 12th of March 2018 in the region around the

settlement of Giathenge, which is in the Kenyan County of Nyeri.The research relied on a

combination of quantitative and qualitative data collection methods to maximize the credibility

of the research findings and to complement possible strengths or weaknesses of a specific

data collection method (Johnson et al. 2003 p. 299).

The research included 40 questionnaires with farmers, semi-structured interviews with 7

farmers, 5 agro-vets and one ‘Agricultural Officer’. In addition to this, participant observation

was being carried out during our stay at different times.

Data Providers

Three different data/ information providers were selected to be part of the research to ensure

a variety of background knowledge, opinions and interests. These three data providers were

farmers in the area of Giathenge, so called Agro-vets in Giathenge and Othaya, which are

pesticide selling shops and the ‘Agricultural Officer’ of the region of Othaya, who is also

responsible for the region around Giathenge.

Data Collection

Data was collected by two groups. One group consisted of two Danish students, one elder

and one translator, while the other group consisted of two Danish students, one Kenyan

student and one translator.

Either the elder or the translator introduced our research topic, when approaching new data

providers. This happened in Swahili for the purpose of building up trust, since most

interviews took place in the private homes of farmers. The interview with the Agricultural

Officer was the only exception and the research introduction was held in English. The data

collection was either done in English or in Swahili and translators were played an essential

role in this process.

SLUSE 2018

XXXVI

Appendix 8

Recommendation Posters

Figure 11. Posters presented during the feedback session

SLUSE 2018

XXXVII